Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in dramatic Senate testimony, on Tuesday decried suggestions he colluded with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign as an “appalling and detestable lie” — while staunchly defending his role in the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. “I have never met with or had any conversations with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election,” Sessions told the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign.”

The attorney general addressed the same Senate panel that heard last week from Comey, becoming the highest-ranking official to testify in the Russia investigation.

Democrats used the forum to pepper Sessions with tough questions, at times accusing him of “stonewalling” and impeding the congressional probe.

The normally reserved Sessions showed his feisty side in response, pushing back on what he called the “secret innuendo” being leaked about his contact with Russians and challenging portions of Comey’s testimony.

In a fiery opening statement, Sessions specifically contradicted Comey’s claims that he remained silent when the former FBI director expressed his concerns over a meeting with President Trump.

“I responded to his comment by agreeing that the FBI and Department of Justice needed to be careful to follow Department policies regarding appropriate contacts with the White House,” Sessions said, adding he was confident that Comey understood the rules on communicating with the White House about ongoing investigations.

Sessions had earlier recused himself from all matters relating to the Russia investigation after it was reported he had failed to disclose two meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden asked Sessions about conflicting accounts rising from Comey’s testimony and claims that there was something “problematic” about Sessions’ role before his recusal.

Asked what issues might be problematic, Sessions raised his voice: “Why don’t you tell me? There are none, Senator Wyden, there are none … This is a secret innuendo being leaked out there about me, and I don’t appreciate it.”

Democrats appeared to be looking for evidence that Sessions’ contact with Russian officials was more significant than previously thought. Sessions has said neither of the two disclosed encounters had anything to with the Trump campaign in 2016 and that the meetings took place in his role as a lawmaker.

Sessions flatly denied a third meeting with the Russian liaison at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington during a campaign event in April.

“I did not have any private meetings nor do I recall any conversations with any Russian officials at the Mayflower Hotel,” he said. “I did not attend any meetings at that event. Prior to the speech, I attended a reception with my staff that included at least two dozen people and President Trump. Though I do recall several conversations I had during that pre-speech reception, I do not have any recollection of meeting or talking to the Russian ambassador or any other Russian officials.”

Tuesday was Sessions’ first time in the witness seat since his confirmation hearing in February.

Sessions’ testimony came on the heels of Comey’s explosive testimony last week on Russia’s medding in U.S. elections and allegations that Trump tried to kill a related investigation.

During Comey’s hearing, he hinted at Sessions’ role in the controversy.

“We were also aware of facts that I cannot discuss in an open setting that would make his continued engagement in a Russia investigation problematic,” Comey said.

The Justice Department and Sessions himself have pushed back on such suggestions. Sessions also has faced questions from Democrats about why he was involved in recommending Comey’s firing even after he recused himself from the Russia investigation. However, Sessions said Tuesday he had a duty to oversee the Justice Department and FBI, and a “fresh start” was needed at the FBI.

He also said he has the right to defend himself.

“I recused myself from any investigation into the campaign for president. I did not recuse myself from defending my honor against scurrilous and false allegations,” he said.

Unlike Comey, who bluntly said he tried to avoid one-on-one encounters with Trump and began documenting their interactions, Sessions is a staunch supporter of the president.

Sessions was one of the first members of Congress to endorse Trump and was then-candidate Trump’s adviser on almost every major decision and policy proposal pushed on the campaign trail.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio asked Sessions whether Trump had recorded conversations he had in the White House with Comey – something Trump hinted he had done then walked back.

Comey said last week that he hopes there are tapes and encouraged the White House to release them.

“I do not [know],” Sessions said when asked whether he knows whether the president records his conversations.

Comey had also said that Sessions had lingered in the Oval Office following a group meeting, just before the private encounter during which Comey has said Trump asked him to pull back on his investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. As Trump tried to shoo everyone out to talk alone with Comey, Sessions lingered, in Comey’s account. Comey suggested this indicated the attorney general’s awareness that it was improper for Trump and Comey to meet alone together, given the specter of the Department of Justice’s investigation into Russia’s election meddling and possible ties with the Trump campaign.

But Sessions disputed that was why he lingered, suggesting there was really nothing to it.

“I do recall being one of the last ones to leave, I don’t know how that occurred,” Sessions said. “I eventually left.”

Boys and Girls, if you were watching AG Sessions testify yesterday, you were watching an honorable man of conviction.

The Liberal Democrats just cannot come to grips that their “perfect” candidate was, in fact, a lousy pick and a hateful, inept, downright mean individual whom they never should have nominated as their Presidential Choice. And so, the Democrats have taken a crooked little fantasy, conceived by two crooked little politicians named Hillary Clinton and John Podesta on the night that the latter was beaten by Donald J. Trump for the Presidency of the United States of America.

Six months later, having come up empty in their Quixotic Quests to find proof to back up their blatant lie that President Trump “colluded” with the Russians, they decided to attempt to break Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a Senate Hearing.

The best laid plans of mice and men oft’ times go awry. – Robert Burns

I suppose that the Democrat Senators believed that their “superior intellects” would tear ol’ Jeff Apart.

Instead it was they who got torn…a new one.

Unlike the sniveling 6’7′ Former FBI Director and Political Weasel who testified recently, AG Sessions stood his ground and showed the Democrat Senators what a man of honor does when his integrity is called into question:

HE FIGHTS!

AG Sessions literally left those seeking to get down and wallow in the mud that is the made-up story of Russian Collusion high and dry.

Which led amateur Political Pundits on Facebook Political Pages yesterday to start claiming that the Attorney General of the United States of America suffers from the early stages of dementia…a charge which the sniveling little cowards living in their Moms’ Basements would not dare repeat to his face.

The Democrat Party and all of their minions in the MSM and their cadre of trolls, paid and unpaid, lurking under the bridges of Facebook Political Pages are now being driven beyond desperation in their Quixotic Quest to somehow rid themselves of an American President who is in the process of doing exactly what he promised to do if elected President.

He is systematically not only destroying Obama’s Legacy, he is also getting bills passed right and left which deal with Obama’s stagnant economy and his horrible (and quite possibly, intentional) mismanagement of the Veterans Administration.

While the Democrats, their Propaganda Arm, the MSM, and their Social Media/Justice “Warriors” are so focused on trying to somehow remove the 45th President from office, Trump is steadily doing what we elected his for.

And as far as Sessions’ day in the spotlight is concerned…

Well done, Mr. Attorney General.

As we say in Dixie,

You told them the way the cow ate the cabbage…and came out smelling like a rose.

“If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.” – George Washington

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter told Fox News on Wednesday she would no longer give a planned speech at UC Berkeley after Young America’s Foundation pulled its support for the event amid threats of violence, calling her decision “a dark day for free speech in America.”

The speech was originally scheduled to take place Thursday – but Berkeley asked to postpone it until next month after protests over the planned speech grew into a nationally-watched firestorm.

“I looked over my shoulder and my allies had joined the other team.”

– Ann Coulter

Coulter, YAF — which had helped organize and finance the event — and the Berkeley College Republicans initially fought the school’s decision, with YAF and the college Republicans filing a civil rights lawsuit on Monday. But by Wednesday YAF had “actively” opposed Coulter’s speech, she said, and “ordered the lawyer not [to] file for [a] court order” which would have mandated a room for the talk. The college Republicans are bound by YAF’s decision, Coulter said, “so there’s nothing more I can do.”

“I looked over my shoulder and my allies had joined the other team,” Coulter said in an email.

In a series of tweets, Coulter said she was “so sorry for free speech crushed by thugs.”

“It’s sickening when a radical thuggish institution like Berkeley can so easily snuff out the cherished American right to free speech,” she tweeted.

“It’s unfortunate we had to cancel the event due to security reasons,” Berkeley College Republicans President Troy Worden told reporters.

In a Tuesday statement posted to the YAF website and signed by both YAF and the executive board of the college Republicans, the groups said Berkeley “failed to meet our demands” to provide a safe environment for the speech.

“Ms. Coulter may still choose to speak in some form on campus, but Young America’s Foundation will not jeopardize the safety of its staff or students,” the statement said.

“The lawsuit has not been dropped,” said YAF spokesman Spencer Brown. “At no time did Berkeley provide a time or place for Coulter to speak, and unconstitutionally violated the First Amendment rights of students in preventing YAF’s campus lecture from taking place. We are moving ahead with the lawsuit.”

Chancellor Nicholas B. Dirks sent a letter to the campus Wednesday saying the university is committed to defending free speech but also to protecting its students.

“This is a university, not a battlefield,” Dirks said in the letter. “The university has two non-negotiable commitments, one to Free Speech the other to the safety of our campus community.”

Coulter was coy about what she would be doing instead of giving the talk.

“I think I’m still going to Berkeley, but there will be no speech,” Coulter said Wednesday.

The university’s attempt to call off the event came after a series of violent clashes this year on campus and in downtown Berkeley between far-right and far-left protesters.

The lawsuit demands unstated damages and compensation for attorney fees, a trial by jury and an injunction against Berkeley officials from “restricting the exercise of political expression on the UC Berkeley campus.”

It names four university officials as defendants, including University of California President Janet Napolitano and Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas B. Dirks, and three police officials, including university police chief Margo Bennett.

Attorney and RNC National Committeewoman Harmeet K. Dhillon said the lawsuit filed against the Berkeley is a “long term remedy” with a “much larger goal.”

The University of California president’s office issued a statement saying it welcomes speakers of all political viewpoints and “is committed to providing a forum to enable Ann Coulter to speak on the Berkeley campus.”

“The campus seeks to ensure that all members of the Berkeley and larger community — including Ms. Coulter herself — remain safe during such an event.”

Capt. Alex Yao of the Berkley campus police force said police presence will be strong Thursday.

“You will see a high number of highly visible law enforcement. We’re going to have a very, very low tolerance for any violence,” he told a news conference. He said Berkeley police had reached out to local and state police forces “to let them know we might be calling for assistance.”

Isn’t it funny how those who claim to be the most tolerant among us, are actually the most intolerant of all of us?

According to a Gallup Poll, published on January 16th of 2016, Conservatives are still the leading Political Ideology in America at 37%, followed closely by “self-described” Moderates at 35%. Liberals remain the Minority Political Ideology in America, comprising only 24% of our population.

That is why I call the actions of these insufferable idiots, like the ones on full display on the Campus of the University of California at Berkeley, as they ban Ann Coulter from speaking, simply because she is a Conservative, “The Tyranny of the Minority”.

Anyway, here we are, after a couple of generations of removing the love of “God and Country” from our public Schools while handing out “Participation Ribbons” with a bunch of undereducated spoiled brats telling all of us normal Americans, living out here in the Heartland, how stupid and intolerant we are, for actually holding on to Traditional American Values and wanting to “Make America Great Again” through our election of Donald J. Trump to the office of the President of the United States of America.

I have heard this kind of garbage before.

Back in 2011, I got into a discussion on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website with some Cheetos-munching, Mom’s basement-dwelling Lib with no home training, who proceeded to tell me that he would be proud to defecate on the American Flag.

If I could have reached through my computer monitor and throttled that useless, ungrateful spoiled brat, I would have.

That “dude” was yet another example of the useful idiots of this present generation, such as Miley Cyrus and all the rest of the “Anti-Trumpers”, who seem to be garnering a lot of national attention for their outrageous, disrespectful…and, yes, intolerant, behavior.

Just as we have been bearing witness for the last few years, through the glorification of thugs and the vilifying of our local police departments by the Obama Administration and the local “communities” which they lay their lives on the line for, every day they put on their uniforms, the effects of LBJ’s “Great Society” on American Culture and the Black Family Unit, so are we witnessing, through the egocentric behavior of this present generation, what happens when children are left to “their own devices”, instead of being raised “in the way in which they should go”.

These “spoiled brats”, like their Liberal Parents and Professors, do not care about the “Will of the People”, but, rather, they are intent on implementing and enforcing their Far Left Political Ideology, resulting in a “Tyranny of the Minority”, which we are seeing play out, as paid and unpaid protestors attempt to ruin Trump’s Presidency through staged “spontaneous” demonstrations, purposefully designed to stifle Free Speech and to hold on to their “FREE STUFF” and irresponsible lifestyles bestowed upon them by the “benevolent masters” of the Democrat Party.

If you have ever attempted to debate a Liberal on a Facebook Political Page or a Political Website, they always attempt to present their opinions as facts, with nothing by Political Rhetoric to back them up.

The use of Karl Marx/Saul Alinsky-inspired “Class War Politics”, including “Racial Rhetoric”, promising a continuance of Barack Hussein Obama’s own “share the wealth” failed Domestic Policy, has inspired these self-absorbed Modern American Liberals leading to a divided nation, the likes of which has not been seen since “The War of Northern Aggression”.

When our Founding Fathers sat down to provide form and substance to the laws and procedures for governing this new country, which they had fought and won a bloody war over, by pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, they were very aware of the price of tyranny.

They determined that this new nation would be a Constitutional Republic, having had their fill of monarchies.

And, that Sacred Document, our United States Constitution, gives each of us the right, including those of us here in the Heartland who are responsible for the election of President Donald J. Trump, to speak our minds and be heard.

It also gives all of the Modern American Liberals, like the spoiled brats at Berkeley, who are still throwing a National Temper Tantrum over Trump’s election that right, too…but, not at the expense of others, by trying to shout down Conservative Speakers, or by rioting, like they did earlier at that Romper Room euphemistically referred to as a “Center for Higher Learning” for the expressed purpose of denying someone their First Amendment Rights.

Our Constitution, in fact, allowed Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton to call all of us who believe in Traditional American Values and the preservation of American as the Greatest Country on God’s Green Earth “Deplorables”.

However, that same Constitution, which Americans have fought and died for to preserve, also gives me the right to label the Self-entitlement-driven Condescending Political Ideology of all of these “Special Snowflakes” for what it actually is:

“INTOLERANCE”.

But, guess what, Kiddies?

Even though you succeeded in keeping Ann Coulter from speaking on the Campus of UC Berkeley, Donald J. Trump is still the President of the United States of America.

And, one day soon, you will be forced to leave the confines of your Liberal Playpen and join us mean ol’ Conservatives out here in the Real World, where there is no “Safe Space”.

You poor widdle babies are gonna gettums feewings hurt because you are going to actually have to go to work and earn your way.

And, the final cold cruel truth?

Liberalism will still be the minority Political Ideology in America.

Overestimation of the popularity of one’s Political Belief System has long been a staple of those who claim to be “the most tolerant among us”, the Modern American Liberal.

And, you “Diaper Dandies” are proving to be the rule, instead of the exception.

Chick-fil-A restaurants that display the American flag are flying them at half-staff in memory of recently deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

The fast food chain that specializes in chicken sandwiches and headed by a conservative Southern Baptist family asked their restaurant managers to lower the American flag in remembrance of Scalia, who died Saturday of natural causes.

“Anytime the president orders the flag be flown at half-staff, Chick-fil-A restaurants do so — as is the case with honoring Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,” read a statement sent to The Christian Post by the fast food company.

“Honor”. A word that, in the case of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, seems to be virtually nonexistent.

President Barack Obama is preparing for a fierce battle with the Senate over the Supreme Court vacancy, but he’s not planning to attend Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral — a decision that puzzled even some of his allies and incensed conservative media.

“If we want to reduce partisanship, we can start by honoring great public servants who we disagree with,” Obama’s former “car czar” Steven Rattner tweeted with a link to a headline about Obama skipping the funeral.

Fox News host Sean Hannity blasted out his own site’s article that dismissed the decision as disappointingly expected: “Obama To SKIP Scalia Funeral, Here’s A List Of OTHER Funerals He Was Too Busy To Attend.”

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest revealed the president’s plans during the

daily briefing, saying Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will go to the Supreme Court on Friday “to pay their respects to Justice Scalia” while the justice lies in repose in the Great Hall. Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Jill Biden, who share Scalia’s Catholic faith, will be at the services instead.

Earnest refused to be drawn out about why the president would not attend the funeral, saying he didn’t know what the president plans to do on Saturday, and Scalia’s son, Eugene, did not immediately respond to a question about whether the family requested that Obama not attend the funeral.

“The president, obviously, believes it’s important for the institution of the presidency to pay his respects to somebody who dedicated three decades of his life to the institution of the Supreme Court,” Earnest said, adding that Friday marked an “important opportunity” to pay those respects.

Inspite of the criticism, people close to the Scalia family said Obama was making the right choice. “I wouldn’t have expected President Obama to attend the funeral Mass, and I see no reason to fault him for not attending,” said Ed Whelan, a former Scalia clerk who now heads the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “The ceremony at the Supreme Court seems the most apt opportunity for the president to pay his respects, but he obviously might have severe competing demands on his time.”

There’s not substantial historic precedent for presidents attending the funerals of sitting justices. President George W. Bush not only attended, but also eulogized Supreme Court chief justice and fellow conservative William Rehnquist in 2005. But before him, the last justice to die in office was Robert H. Jackson in 1954.

Still, the decision to forgo the funeral on Saturday was played up by some as a partisan snub.

Tim Miller, the communications director for Jeb Bush, simply tweeted “Same.” in response to a message from MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who said, “Some amazing advice my mom gave me once: ‘If you’re wondering whether you should go to the funeral, you should go to the funeral.”

The optics of paying his respects to Scalia are tricky for Obama, who would have been the subject of constant cutaways to his reactions and interactions with members of Congress during the funeral, distracting from memorials for the giant of American legal thought.

Obama so far has taken pains to show reverence for Scalia, even as he urged Republicans to keep an open mind about a replacement. In the immediate aftermath of Scalia’s death last weekend, Obama praised his wit and predicted that he would be remembered as one of the “most consequential judges and thinkers to serve.”

Confronted with a series of questions during a press conference on Tuesday about Republican plans to block a nominee, Obama was careful to again express gratitude for Scalia’s service before launching into a Constitutional lecture directed at the opposing party.

Scalia’s death ripped open a political seam that has suddenly consumed both the presidential race and the Senate, especially after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell immediately issued a statement calling for Scalia’s replacement to be delayed until the next president is in office. Obama almost as quickly announced he would not be deterred, and pronounced his intent to nominate a fair-minded legal heavyweight to replace Scalia.

Former justice Sandra Day O’Connor on Wednesday appeared to back Obama’s decision to move forward with a nomination, telling a Fox affiliate, “We need somebody in there to do the job and just get on with it.”

So far, however, the president has not tipped his hand as far as top candidates, or even whether he will considering picking a moderate who could be palatable to the Republican-controlled Senate.

The White House said no nomination is expected this week while Congress is in recess, but there’s still been plenty of speculation and tea-leaf reading about both Obama’s and the Senate’s intentions.

On Tuesday, some Republicans signaled they’re open to at least holding hearings, if not also allowing a confirmation vote. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin in an interview with POLITICO bristled at the suggestion that his party would completely ignore a nomination, saying, “It’s amazing how many words are being put in everybody’s mouth.”

Also on Tuesday, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, whose panel would evaluate any potential Obama pick, said he wouldn’t rule out holding hearings.

On Wednesday, Nevada GOP Sen. Dean Heller broke with his party’s strategy and called on Obama to put forward a consensus candidate. “The chances of approving a new nominee are slim, but Nevadans should have a voice in the process,” said Heller, a purple state senator, in the most direct rebuttal to McConnell’s plans to complete block a Supreme Court nominee.

But McConnell is still making hay of the Senate’s oppositional force, penning a letter on Wednesday afternoon for the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm that told donors that their “support means everything at this pivotal moment in American history.”

“Senate Republicans have made a commitment to ensuring that the American people have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice,” McConnell wrote. “Stand with Senate Republicans as we hold our ground in waiting to confirm a new justice until after 2016, the time by which the American people will have chosen a new president and a new direction for our country.”

At the press briefing on Wednesday, Earnest also tried to clarify Obama’s view on his own decision as a senator to filibuster against President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, in 2006. Earnest said Obama “regrets” the decision. But, he said, the situation was different.

“The president considered the qualifications and world view and credentials and record of the individual that President Bush put forward and then-Sen. Obama raised some objections,” Earnest said. “And what the president regrets is that Senate Democrats didn’t focus more on making an effective public case about those substantive suggestions.”

President Obama will become the first U.S. president to skip the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court justice in at least 65 years when he skips the funeral service for Justice Antonin Scalia, scheduled to be held this Saturday.

While Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, in recent history most have retired from the bench prior to their deaths.

Most recently, President George W. Bush gave the eulogy at the funeral of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who passed in 2005 while still on the bench.

Prior to Rehnquists’ death, Dwight D. Eisenhower was photographed attending the funeral of Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, who served on the court until he passed away in 1953.

The funerals of sitting Supreme Court Justices were far more common before the 1950s, but it is unclear if sitting presidents attended the funeral services of those sitting justices or if not as few records of attendance exist.

Why is the President not attending the funeral of the Senion Justice on the Supreme Court/

Petulant President Pantywaist couldn’t be holding a grudge, could he?

Does the very thought of Hillary Clinton and Yoko Ono having a “fling” make you want to hurl?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the annual State of the Union ritual Tuesday night, calling the presidential speech something worth skipping because it is a “rather silly affair.”One of three justices who did not attend President Obama’s speech at the U.S. Capitol — along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — Scalia bemoaned that “it has turned into a childish spectacle, and I don’t think that I want to be there to lend dignity to it.”

“The State of the Union is not something I write on my calendar,” Scalia said during his own remarks before the Smithsonian Associates at George Washington University. But he quipped, “I didn’t set this up tonight just to upstage the president.”

Scalia’s views are shared by Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito, both nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush. Roberts once said the presidential speech has “denigrated into a political pep rally” and added that it was “troubling” to expect members of the high court to sit there expressionless.

Indeed, Alito was seen on TV cameras during Obama’s 2010 remarks shaking his head and mouthing the words “not true” when the president criticized the high court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld the right of corporations and unions to make unlimited, independent political expenditures.

Next to a presidential inauguration, the State of the Union Address has similar stagecraft and drama. The president speaks before a joint session of Congress, and the justices, Cabinet members, foreign diplomats and assorted guests are in attendance in the packed House chambers.

Petulant President Pantywaist, as I dubbed him, years ago, behaves as if the world should genuflect when he enters the room, hanging on his every syllable in rapt attention.

Justice Scalia, appointed by an AMERICAN PRESIDENT by the name of Ronald Reagan, was a man’s man, a Christian and a Constitutionalist, who believed in American Exceptionalism and Traditional American Values.

His Legal Writings were brilliant in scope and interpretation.

By contrast, Obama was the first Editor of the Harvard Law Review, who never contributed to that publication.

Obama’s childish snubbing of Justice Scalia’s Funeral tells you everything that you need to know about him.

The Republican establishment, which has always distrusted and discounted Donald Trump, is getting increasingly nervous.

So nervous, in fact, that some of its media voices are starting to denounce their party’s front-runner in the strongest possible terms.

As in, refusing to vote for the man if he’s the nominee. As in, loudly proclaiming that he will destroy the GOP.

Viewed from one perspective, this has the smell of panic. Viewed from another, it’s a case of party stalwarts speaking out based on principle.

For decades now, there has been primary-season sniping between the establishment wing and the insurgent/hard-line/Tea Party wing. Commentators rough up their least favorite candidate, even declare them unqualified for the White House.

But if that person prevails—think Mitt Romney in 2012—the sharpest Republican critics find a way to walk it back. Well, he wasn’t my first choice, but he would be better than Barack Obama. He’s evolved on immigration/tax cuts/ObamaCare. He would pull this country out of its left-wing tailspin.

These days, the rhetoric is getting so hot that there will be no scrambling back on board. Bill Kristol has been openly musing about a third party if Trump wins the nomination.

Does the conservative media elite hope to throw some tacks under the Trump steamroller with such sharp rhetoric? Or are its members just speaking out to clear their consciences?

If it’s the former, I think it might actually help Trump to have the Beltway types arrayed against him. These are the folks he is running against, and he’s never positioned himself as a doctrinaire conservative.

Michael Gerson, a Bush White House official who writes for the Washington Post, uses sweeping language:

“Trump’s nomination would not be the temporary victory of one of the GOP’s ideological factions. It would involve the replacement of the humane ideal at the center of the party and its history. If Trump were the nominee, the GOP would cease to be.”

Cease to be. That’s pretty historic stuff.

Gerson calls Trump a “demagogue” who “has followed some of America’s worst instincts wherever they have led, and fed ethnic and religious prejudice in the process. All presidential nominees, to some extent, shape their parties into their own image. Trump would deface the GOP beyond recognition.”

In case you missed the point, Gerson says: “Trump is disqualified for the presidency by his erratic temperament, his ignorance about public affairs and his scary sympathy for authoritarianism. But for me, and I suspect for many, the largest problem is that Trump would make the GOP the party of racial and religious exclusion.”

Doug Heye has been communications chief of the RNC, a top deputy to Eric Cantor and a Bush administration official. He makes a personal declaration in the Independent Journal:

“Because of Trump’s perversion of conservatism, along with the devastating impact he would have if nominated, I cannot support Donald Trump were he to win the Republican nomination.”

Heye says Trump would be “dangerous to the United States and the world at a time when the world is at risk.” His nomination, says Heye, “would be catastrophic for Republican hopes to win the White House and maintain control of the Senate and would damage the party and the conservative cause for years to come. His having the legitimacy that comes with the nomination of a major political party would cause greater instability throughout the world at a time when the world looks to America for leadership that is serious and sober.”

This is the New York Times’ latest version of the same story, calling it a “people’s coup”:

At family dinners and New Year’s parties, in conference calls and at privatelunches, longtime Republicans are expressing a growing fear that the coming election could be shattering for the party, or reshape it in ways that leave it unrecognizable.

But a very different tack from Peggy Noonan, who worked for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who turns the question back on the establishment:

“I do not understand the inability or refusal of Republican leaders to take Mr. Trump seriously. They take his numbers seriously—they can read a poll—but they think, as Mr. Bush said, that his support is all about anger, angst and theatrics. That’s part of the story, but the other, more consequential part has to do with real policy issues. The establishment refuses to see that, because to admit it is to implicate themselves and their leadership. Political consultants can’t see it because they don’t think issues matter—not to them and certainly not to the dumb voters.

“But issues do matter, and Mr. Trump has functioned this year not as a great communicator or great compromiser but as the great disruptor. He brags that he has brought up great questions and forced other candidates to face them and sometimes change their stands—and he has.”

There really isn’t much of an establishment left. It consists of some megabuck donors, elected officials, seasoned operatives and media pundits. They don’t have the power to stop Trump, and they know it.

The best they can hope for is to influence the debate. Their problem is that most of them don’t like Ted Cruz, either.

Indeed.

Just as the backlash against President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democr5at Party has reached deafening levels here in America’s Heartland, snobbishly referred to by the Political Elite as “Flyover Country”, so has the refusal of the leaders of both Political Parties to admit their culpability in creating the problems our nation is facing, which can be traced back to their failed domestic and foreign policies and failed leadership.

Why do I believe that Donald J. Trump is still the frontrunner among all the Republican Presidential Candidates?

This brash, unabashedly American, business entrepreneur and quintessential showman has dominated the media for the past several years.

The popularity of his reality program on NBC and the catch phrase that came leaping out from it, “You’re fired!”, spread across America like wildfire.

Now, his Presidential Campaign continues to do the same.

It is not just his flamboyance that has caught the eye of Americans.

The fact is, after almost two terms of an Administration taking the great country in the world on a scenic tour of the Highway to Hell, Donald Trump is the only Republican Candidate shouting, “Hit the brakes, you idiots!”

Trump’s straightforwardness has struck a chord in the hearts of average Americans, tired of the wussification of America, being so relentlessly pushed by both modern political parties.

This is what I don’t understand about the Republican Establishment:

They run around telling everybody how Conservative they are, when in reality, they actually hold the same beliefs as Liberal Democrats.

Ronald Reagan gave a famous stump speech about the fact that the Republican Party at one time, needed “bold colors, not pale pastels”.

From what I’m seeing out of a lot of the Republicans right now, they’re not even presenting Americans with pale pastels.

…Except for Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

The “Republican Elite”, as Kurtz refers to them, are showing their color to be Liberal Blue, while they claim to be Conservative Red.

It is almost as if they believe that the Political Tsunami, which resulted in Republicans holding both Houses of Congress, came about because they made themselves look like Democrats.

They need to come down off of Capitol Hill every now and then.

And, visit Realityville.

Average Americans, like you and me, living from paycheck to paycheck in America’s Heartland, do not need another Democratic Party.

If we wanted to continue to put up with their Liberal Stupidity, we would have left all of them in office.

Instead, in November of 2014, we showed them the door.

If Jeb Bush and the rest of the Vichy Republicans actually believe that they will win over the Mexican vote, or the rest of the Hispanic Vote, if by then those who are now illegal are allowed to vote, in 2016, then I have two bridges over the Mississippi River at Memphis to sell them.

The overwhelming majority of average Americans want Conservatives whose blood runs red, not Liberal squishes, who have more in common with the Democrats in the Northeast Corridor, than they do with average Americans in the Heartland.

If the Republican Establishment does not come to that realization very soon, they will go down to defeat again in 2016.

They will never achieve victory by trying to push a candidate, who represents the Jello of “Liberal Moderation”, up a hill.

In summation, the American people are tired of Political Correctness and anti-American political expediencies being forced down our throats by both political parties and trumpeted by their lackeys in the Main Stream Media.

Donald Trump, for all of his brashness and braggadocio, is a breath of free air and, quite frankly an anomaly. He’s not a professional politician. He is a businessman who wants to become a public servant.

Now, where did I hear that before?

Oh, yeah.

That’s the way the Founding Fathers envisioned our system of government, led by citizens, who served their terms as public servants…AND THEN WENT HOME.

But, I digress…

You know what tickles me the most about “The Donald”?

He reminds me of one of my favorite movie characters.

He actually has a backbone.

Just remember what ol’ Jack Burton does when the earth quakes, and the poison arrows fall from the sky, and the pillars of Heaven shake. Yeah, Jack Burton just looks that big ol’ storm right square in the eye and he says, “Give me your best shot, pal. I can take it.” – Jack Burton, Truck Driver (Kurt Russell) “Big Trouble in Little China”

The gunman in Friday’s shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood Friday was identified by Colorado Springs police Saturday as Robert L. Dear.

Police said Dear is 57. They also released a mug photo.

The shooter is from North Carolina, an unidentified law enforcement official told AP. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak about the ongoing investigation.

Three people, including one police officer, were killed in Friday’s attack. The gunman was taken into custody after an hours-long standoff and shootout. Authorities have yet to determine a motive behind the shooting or whether the gunman had any connection to Planned Parenthood.

The University of Colorado in Colorado Springs police department identified the officer killed as Garrett Swasey, 44, a six-year veteran of the force. Nine other people, including five police officers, were shot and are in good condition, police said.

Buckley also said the unidentified man had brought “items” with him inside the building and left some outside, meaning officers had to make sure they were not “any kind of devices.”

The man apparently began his deadly spree at the Planned Parenthood building, although it was not clear if his motive was related to the organization.

“We don’t have any information on this individual’s mentality, or his ideas or ideology,” Buckley said.

After a brief lull, he began shooting again at police, who had gotten inside the building.

Buckley said there was no information indicating the gunman himself had been shot.

Multiple police vehicles and ambulances were parked outside the building in a snowstorm and 17 degree temperatures.

Police closed Centennial Boulevard in both directions and customers were locked down at a King Soopers grocery store and several nearby shops in the strip mall area. Buckley said officers were working through the process of releasing them.

Witnesses described a chaotic scene when the shooting first started.

Ozy Licano was in the two-story building’s parking lot when he saw someone crawling toward the clinic’s door. He tried to escape in his car when the gunman looked at him.

“He came out, and we looked each other in the eye, and he started aiming, and then he started shooting,” Licano said. “I saw two holes go right through my windshield as I was trying to quickly back up and he just kept shooting and I started bleeding.”

Licano drove away and took refuge at a nearby grocery store.

“He was aiming for my head,” he said of the gunman. “It’s just weird to stare in the face of someone like that. And he didn’t win.”

Denise Speller, manager at a nearby haircut salon, told the Gazette she heard 10 to 20 gunshots in the span of less than five minutes.

She said she saw a police cruiser and two officers outside near Chase Bank, not far from the Planned Parenthood facility. One of the officers appeared to fall to the ground and the other office knelt down to render aid, then tried to get the officer to safety behind the car, she said. Another officer told Speller to seek shelter inside the building.

“We’re still pretty freaked out,” Speller said by phone. “We can’t stop shaking. For now we’re stuck back here not knowing.”

Some people managed to escape the building and flee to a nearby bank. An armored vehicle was seen taking evacuees away from the clinic to ambulances waiting nearby.

With the immediate threat over, authorities swept the building and turned their attention to inspecting unspecified items the gunman left outside the building and carried inside in bags. They were concerned that he had planted improvised explosive devices meant to cause even more destruction. As of late Friday, police did not say what was found.

Yesterday, as this attack was in progress, Liberals on Internet Political Sites, including Facebook Pages, appeared to be as giddy as schoolgirls.

Finally, here was a sociopath, who would take Americans’ attention off the forced importation of ISIS to our shores by Obama and the United Nations, imnbedded within thousands of Syrian Refugees.

Additionally, this barbarian seemed to be purposefully attacking their Holy Temple of Molech, an Office of Planned Parenthood in Colorado.

As I have written time and time again, Liberals love to draw a false equivalency between the faith of 3/4ths of Americans, Christianity, and a political ideology, masquerading as a faith, Radical Islam

What “the Smartest People in the Room” refuse to comprehend is the fact that,

When Christians become “radicalized”, we want to share the testimony of what God has done for us through His love, with everyone we meet. We get involved in our local church and we become better fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, and American Citizens.

When Muslims become “radicalized”, they want to “kill the Infidels” in the name of “Allah the Merciful”.

In the case of the Chechen Muslim brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, their immersion into Radical Islam led them to “kill the infidels” that horrendous day.

In the case of the barbarians of ISIS, it has turned them into doppelgangers of the Nazi Butchers of Dachau.

Speaking of which, how is the mass murder of over one million innocent American lives, every year, through abortion. any different than the “Final Solution” of the Nazis, which sent 6 million Jews and 5 million gypsies to the gas chambers?

Have you ever tried to have a discussion with an ardent pro-abortion supporter, either on Facebook or face-to-face? You won’t hear these “Champions of Tolerance” call those innocent lives, babies, human beings, a life, a soul, a gift from God, or anything remotely resembling something that they should feel remorse about killing.

Heck, Pro-Abortionists are opposed to the taking of sonograms of the woman’s womb, before she has a abortion. They’re afraid that the “seed-carrier” will realize that IS a HUMAN BEING inside her, and will decide not to kill that baby.

It’s appropriate for all Americans to be upset over the actions of a sociopath, like Robert L. Dear.

My question is: What makes the ending of a human life, for the sake of convenience, any less horrible?

Heavenly Father, I prayerfully ask that You comfort the family of that brave policeman who lost his life yesterday, and the families of the other Americans, whom that sociopath murdered.

A measure of the church’s long history of intrigue has spilled into the Francis papacy, particularly as the pope has ordered radical overhauls of murky Vatican finances. Under Francis, the top leadership of the Vatican Bank was ousted, as was the all-Italian board of its financial watchdog agency.

One method of pushback has been to give damaging leaks to the Italian news media. Vatican officials are now convinced that the biggest leak to date — of the papal encyclical on the environment in June — was driven by greed (it was sold to the media) rather than vengeance. But other disclosures have targeted key figures in the papal cleanup — including the conservative chosen to lead the pope’s financial reforms, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, who in March was the subject of a leak about his allegedly lavish personal tastes.

More often, dissent unfolds on ideological grounds. Criticism of a sitting pope is hardly unusual — liberal bishops on occasion challenged Benedict. But in an institution cloaked in traditional fealty to the pope, what shocks many is just how public the criticism of Francis has become.

In an open letter to his diocese, Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., wrote: “In trying to accommodate the needs of the age, as Pope Francis suggests, the Church risks the danger of losing its courageous, countercultural, prophetic voice, one that the world needs to hear.” For his part, Burke, the cardinal from Wisconsin, has called the church under Francis “a ship without a rudder.”

Even Pell appeared to undermine him on theological grounds. Commenting on the pope’s call for dramatic action on climate change, Pell told the Financial Times in July, “The church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters.”

In conservative circles, the word “confusion” also has become a euphemism for censuring the papacy without mentioning the pope. In one instance, 500 Catholic priests in Britain drafted an open letter this year that cited “much confusion” in “Catholic moral teaching” following the bishops’ conference on the family last year in which Francis threw open the floodgates of debate, resulting in proposed language offering an embraceable, new stance for divorced or gay Catholics.

That language ultimately was watered down in a vote that showed the still-ample power of conservatives. It set up another showdown for next month, when senior church leaders will meet in a follow-up conference that observers predict will turn into another theological slugfest. The pope himself will have the final word on any changes next year.

Conservatives have launched a campaign against a possible policy change that would grant divorced and remarried Catholics the right to take Communion at Mass. Last year, five senior leaders including Burke and the conservative Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna, Italy, drafted what has become known as “the manifesto” against such a change. In July, a DVD distributed to hundreds of dioceses in Europe and Australia, and backed by conservative Catholic clergy members, made the same point. In it, Burke, who has made similar arguments at a string of Catholic conferences, issued dire warnings of a world in which traditional teachings are ignored.

But this is still the Catholic Church, where hierarchical respect is as much tradition as anything else. Rather than targeting the pope, conservative bishops and cardinals more often take aim at their liberal peers. They include the German Cardinal Walter Kasper, who has suggested that he has become a proxy for clergy members who are not brave enough to criticize the pope directly.

Yet conservatives counter that liberals are overstepping their bounds, putting their own spin on the pronouncements of a pope who has been more ambiguous than Kasper and his allies are willing to admit.

“I was born a papist, I have lived as a papist, and I will die a papist,” Caffarra said. “The pope has never said that divorced and remarried Catholics should be able to take Holy Communion, and yet, his words are being twisted to give them false meaning.”

Some of the pope’s allies insist that debate is precisely what Francis wants.

“I think that people are speaking their mind because they feel very strongly and passionately in their position, and I don’t think the Holy Father sees it as a personal attack on him,” said Chicago Archbishop Blase J. Cupich, considered a close ally of the pope. “The Holy Father has opened the possibility for these matters to be discussed openly; he has not predetermined where this is going.”

That means that he represents Christ’s love and concern for every single individual. That is why the Pope’s priority lies in getting to know people, understanding how they live, listening to their interests and sharing their sufferings and their joys. On no account should the Pope allow his contact with ordinary people to be obstructed by a multitude of administrative duties.

He is the Unifier of the People of God.

Because of the international character of the Church, this will create many demands. The good of the world-wide Church and the autonomy of local Churches need to be balanced. That is why the Pope should guide and inspire the Central Synod of Bishops so that it can efficiently work out agreements and general Church policies.

He is the Prime Witness to Faith.

This includes both preaching [= announcing the message to non-Christians] and teaching [= explaining an element of Christ’s message in today’s context]. On very rare occasions the Pope is the main exponent of the infallible understanding of faith [=inerrancy] that is carried by the whole people of God. The Pope can only do so after listening to the People of God and discerning the faith they carry in their hearts.

Pope Francis is the first Pope who represents the Far Left Political Viewpoint.

Pope Francis seems more comfortable reaching out to Communist and Socialist countries, then he does to the Vatican’s Traditional Allies, those countries who enjoy strong economies, built upon freedom and a competitive marketplace.

I know that I may sound like an old cracker, but my generation was blessed with three very remarkable leaders: United States President Ronald Reagan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II.

These three stood for everything that was good about freedom.

All three knew the dangers and corruption of the implementation of Marxist Theory through the governments of man.

Here is what the wonderful and gracious Pope John Paul II said about an out-of-control Nanny-State (Socialist) Government:

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending, In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need.

And, while this present Pontiff is romancing the Palestinians, Pope John Paul II reached out to God’s Chosen People.

In 1994, John Paul II established full diplomatic ties between the Vatican and Israel. He said,

For the Jewish people who live in the State of Israel and who preserve in that land such precious testimonies to their history and their faith, we must ask for the desired security and the due tranquillity that are the prerogative of every nation . . .

Pope John Paul II also said…

The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.

I do not believe that Jesus would be a part of the Social Justice Movement, which is so popular among Liberal Churches, today. His was and is a soul-saving movement. One that still brings hundreds of thousand of people to individual salvation on this terrestrial ball every day. A movement that, in fact, was embraced by the founders of this cherished land.

Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, once said:

Regrettably, there is no shortage of preachers who have traded the Gospel for a platform of political and economic change, most often packaged as a call for social justice…

The church is not to adopt a social reform platform as its message, but the faithful church, wherever it is found, is itself a social reform movement precisely because it is populated by redeemed sinners who are called to faithfulness in following Christ. The Gospel is not a message of social (collective) salvation, but it does have social implications.

Pope Francis is presently doing the World’s Catholics a great disservice.

The current Pope’s embracing of certain aspects of Socialism, “Climate Change”, and the other erroneous, secular philosophies of the Far Left, dilutes his effectiveness as an Emmissary of God and the Head of the Catholic Church.

The world hungers for the Word of God.

Mankind needs to hear of God’s Love for them as individuals, not the machinations and limitations of man, as detailed in Marxist Theory.

We hear lot about the United States’ Judeo-Christian heritage, but according to President Obama, “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

That’s what the president told a White House conference on “countering violent extremism” on Wednesday.

Obama has said similar things in the past:

“I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story,” Obama said in aJune 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt. “Islam has always been part of America,” he said in a 2010 statement marking the start of Ramadan. And in a 2014 statement marking Eid, Obama said the holiday “also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.”

In his speech on Wednesday, Obama was making the point that Western nations must show that they “welcome people of all faiths,” at a time when “extremists” are saying that Western nations are “hostile to Muslims.”

“Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding. Generations — (applause) — Generations of Muslim immigrants came here and went to work as farmers and merchants and factory workers, helped to lay railroads and to build up America.

“The first Islamic center in New York City was founded in the 1890s. America’s first mosque, this was an interesting fact, was in North Dakota.” (It was established in 1929).

Both of those milestones happened well after America’s founding, however. In fact, the new nation’s first dealings with Islam were tense and unpleasant.

According to a Heritage Foundation paper, shortly after America’s founding, the United States “was dragged into the affairs of the Islamic world by an escalating series of unprovoked attacks on Americans by Muslim pirates, the terrorists of the era,” who looted American ships and captured American sailors, holding them for ransom or selling them as slaves.

The paper notes that America’s struggle with Muslim pirates from the Barbary States (modern-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya) began soon after the 13 colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776 and continued for roughly four decades.

In his remarks on Wednesday, President Obama said Muslim Americans now serve as police officers, firefighters, soldiers, “and in our intelligence communities and in homeland security.”

He said Muslim American heroes are buried at Arlington National Cemetery, “having given their lives in defense of all of us.”

“And, of course, that’s the story extremists and terrorists don’t want the world to know — Muslims succeeding and thriving in America. Because when that truth is known, it exposes their propaganda as the lie that it is.

“It’s also a story that every American must never forget, because it reminds us all that hatred and bigotry and prejudice have no place in our country. It is not just counterproductive. It doesn’t just aid terrorists. It’s wrong. It’s contrary to who we are.”

So-called hate crimes against Muslims escalated in this country after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 — attacks perpetrated by Islamic radicals — but they have never reached the level of hate crimes against Jews, according to the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Reporting statistics.

In 2013, for example, 62.4 percent of hate crime victims were attacked because of anti-Jewish bias, while 11.6 percent were victims of anti-Islamic bias.

Compare that with the year before the 2001 terror attacks: In 2000, of the 1,699 victims of anti-religious hate crime, 74.6 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias; and only 2.1 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Islamic bias.

Furthermore…

Noted expert on Radical Islam, Walid Shoebat, has a website titled shoebat.com. On it, you will find the following pertinent information:

Islam, is in fact, a part of America’s founding, but not in the sense that Obama wants to convey to us. Islam did a very good job in deceiving some of our Founding Fathers, and once that deception lost its touch, it compelled the United States to launch its first international war that would ultimately lead to the formation of the United States Marine Corps. This international war was the Barbary Pirate Wars.

Joshua E. London wrote a very detailed on article on the Barbary Pirate Wars and I would like to convey some of the things that he has written.

It has been stated that around 1 million European Christian sailors from France, Spain, Holland, Great Britain, the Americas, and even Iceland, were captured by Muslim pirates in between 1500 and 1800. What happened many times was that the sailors would be stripped of all their belongings, including the clothes on their backs, and forced to go into North Africa where they would be slaves to Muslims.

After the American War of Independence, the Americans lost the protection that Britain was providing for their merchant ships, thus leaving American vessels very vulnerable to Islamic attacks.

In the year 1785, two American merchant ships — the Maria of Boston and the Dauphine of Philadelphia — were captured by Muslim pirates. The United States government, instead of using military force, decided to utilize diplomacy to convince the pirates to release the poor twenty four sailors who were under their hands. Such discussions of peace were proven useless, for from 1785 to 1793, thirteen American ships, and 119 American sailors were seized by Algerian pirates.

When Jefferson and Adams were striving to solve the terrorism coming from the Barbary pirates, they apparently did not understand the religion of their enemies. This is where Islam’s involvement in America’s founding comes to mind: Islam deceived the Founding Fathers, and now Obama wants to deceive us into making the same mistakes they made.

President Obama on Wednesday stressed that U.S. is not at war with Islam:”We are at war with people who have perverted Islam,” he said.

He also said the West and Islam are not in conflict; and that Islam is not incompatible with modern life, although in the same speech he urged other countries to invest in the education of both males and females — “because countries will not be truly successful if half their populations, if their girls and their women, are denied opportunity.”

In a speech to the same summit on Thursday, Obama noted that many Americans don’t personally know a single Muslim, and they form a distorted impression about Islam by what they hear on the news.

And, what they hear coming out of President Barack Hussein Obama’s mouth.

“I do not believe — and I know this is a horrible thing to say — but I do not believe that this President loves America,” Giuliani said of Obama.

“He doesn’t love you. He doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up,” Giuliani added. “To love this country. And with all our faults, we’re the most exceptional country in the world.”

The former mayor attempted to soften his comments Thursday, saying that he was “not questioning (Obama’s) patriotism.”

He’s a patriot, I’m sure,” Giuliani said during an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends.” “What I’m saying is, in his rhetoric I very rarely hear the things that I used to hear Ronald Reagan say, the things that I used to hear Bill Clinton say about how much he loves America. I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American Presidents. And when it’s not in the context of an overwhelming number of statements about the exceptionalism of America, it sounds like he’s more of a critic than he is a supporter.”

“You can be a patriotic American and be a critic,” he added, “but then you’re not expressing that kind of love that we’re used to from a President.”

That is putting it mildly, Your Honor.

Ever since Barack Hussein Obama ascended to the Throne of the Regime, he has been relentless in his quest to turn our Sovereign Nation in an 180 degree direction from the path of freedom, through a functioning Constitutional Republic, One Nation Under God, Indivisible, which our Founding Fathers, Christian Men, gave us as our legacy.

His denial of the existence of Radical Islam and his rhetorical embrace of Revisionist History is just the latest chapter in what has been a sorry excuse for a presidency.

Now, I made some commitments four years ago. I told you I’d end the war in Iraq — and we did. I said we’d end the war in Afghanistan — we are. I said we’d refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11 — and we have. And today, a new tower rises above the New York skyline, and Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Usama bin Laden is dead. – United States President Barack Hussein Obama, October 18, 2012

Yesterday, Muslim Terrorism reared up its ugly head once again, this time in Paris, France. We have since found out that the perpetrators of this mass murder were members of al-Qaeda from the country of Yemen.

Upon further review of the incident, it was also noticed that three of the officers arrived on the scene we’re not even carrying firearms, due to the very strict gun control policy of the country of France.

France is a country controlled by Liberal Politically-Correct Government, as is the case presently in the United States of America.

France’s Front National leader Marine Le Pen pinned the blame for the killing of 12 people in Paris today on Islamic radicals, as mainstream leaders tried to downplay the religious dimension of the attack.

While President Francois Hollande called for national unity in an attempt to deter the public from demonizing the country’s 5-million strong Muslim community, Le Pen said France has to confront the beliefs of the gunmen who stormed the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo this morning.

“Time’s up for denial and hypocrisy,” Le Pen, who has railed against immigration, said in a video posted on her party’s website today. “The absolute rejection of Islamic fundamentalism must be proclaimed loudly and clearly.”

The lessons voters’ draw from the deadliest attack on French soil since World War II will shape the political debate as the country looks toward the 2017 election. Hollande, the most unpopular president in modern history, is struggling to make up ground on Le Pen, who’s seen her support surge as she blames immigrants for France’s near-record unemployment and deepening inequalities.

2012 Precedent

“Of all political parties, the Front National stands to gain most from this atrocity,” Jim Shields, head of French studies at Aston University in Birmingham, England, said in an interview. “Public agreement with the FN’s ideas has been rising steadily and this event will play into the party’s anti-immigration, anti-Islam agenda.”

When the Islamist terrorist Mohammed Merah carried out deadly attacks in Toulouse and Montauban in 2012, Le Pen was the presidential candidate who benefited most, Shields said.

The French government is trying to damp fears that the growing influence of Islam is eroding social cohesion. Le Pen led Hollande by as much as 15 percentage points in a September survey of voting intentions by Ifop for Le Figaro newspaper. The Front National topped Hollande’s Socialists and their predecessors, the UMP, in last year’s European elections.

Hollande, who Le Pen has previously attacked for underestimating the terrorist threat, today put the country on its highest alert while appealing to his countrymen to transcend their ethnic and religious divisions.

5 Million Muslims

“We’ll stick together and show that France is a country that knows how to react appropriately, showing firmness and national unity,” the president told reporters in eastern Paris, near the scene of the attack.

France is home to Europe’s largest Muslim community, making up about 7.7 percent of the population, and their numbers have been growing with children and grandchildren of those who arrived from the country’s former colonies in North Africa during the 20th century. Very few Muslims have reached top-level jobs in France, while second-and- third-generation French people of Arab descent say they often face discrimination.

Well, the actions of these Muslim Terrorists yesterday certainly will not help their cause any.

As I have shown in previous blogs, several verses of the Muslim holy book, the Quran, call for violence toward anyone who does not accept Islam as the one true faith. There are many verses within the Quran, which spell out in graphic detail the measures which the believer is supposed to take against non- believers, or infidels.

Just as President Obama’s attempts to negotiate with these barbarians have failed spectacularly so far, it appears that France’s attempts at appeasement have failed as well.

What is important factors that differentiates the United States of America from France is the fact that our citizens still possess the constitutional right to bear arms. Also, our police are still allowed to carry them, as well.

We all know the old saying that goes,

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

As the country of France found out yesterday, that goes for Muslim terrorist, as well.

As we begin this New Year, I have been researching the status of Christianity in America.

Recently, Fox New’s Todd Starnes wrote the following opinion piece about a recent issue of Newsweek attacking American Christianity…

Newsweek is launching the New Year with an old school attack on the Bible and Christians. It was just the sort of holiday hit piece that we’ve come to expect from these anti-Christian pinhead.

I imagine the Yuletide season must bring about near celebrations in the hallways of Newsweek as writers giddily try to find new ways to defile the followers of Christ.

This year’s winner was Kurt Eichenwald – and he certainly spun quite a yarn – one truly worthy to be published in a magazine. Mr. Eichenwald is known around literary circles as a man of words – and he certainly used most of them in his verbose essay.

I’m not sure why, but the folks over at Newsweek seem to hold a mighty big grudge against Christians. Maybe somebody spiked their Kool-Aid during Vacation Bible School? Who knows?

“The Bible – So Misunderstood it’s a Sin,” was the title of his treatise – of such import that editors demanded it grace the cover of the magazine.

At first glance, I thought Mr. Eichenwald’s essay was a failed attempt at satire. However, by the end of the first paragraph, I realized it was meant to be a scholarly work. By the end of the second paragraph I was overcome by the fumes from this steaming pile of stink.

Newsweek’s 16-page diatribe portrays Evangelical Christians as homophobic, right-wing fundamentalist hypocrites who believe an unbelievable Bible. And just in case the reader misses the writer’s subtle nuance, the essay was illustrated with images of snake handlers, Pat Robertson and the Westboro Baptist Church.

That’s because in the minds of Newsweek’s esteemed editors, most evangelical Christians spend their weekends dancing with snakes and picketing gay nightclubs. Merry Christmas, America.

“They wave their Bibles at passersby, screaming their condemnation of homosexuals,” Eichenwald wrote. “They fall on their knees, worshipping at the base of granite monuments to the Ten Commandments while demanding prayer in school. They appeal to God to save America from their political opponents, mostly Democrats. They gather in football stadiums by the thousands to pray for the country’s salvation.”

I’m not sure why, but the folks over at Newsweek seem to hold a mighty big grudge against Christians. Maybe somebody spiked their Kool-Aid during Vacation Bible School? Who knows?

“These are God’s frauds, cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side orders for lunch,” Newsweek’s writer blathered. “They are joined by religious rationalizers – fundamentalists who, unable to find Scripture supporting their biases and beliefs, twist phrase and modify translations to prove they are honoring the Bible’s words.”

As if Newsweek was trying to honor the Bible. The magazine goes on to advance theories that some of the New Testament books are forgeries and it calls I Timothy “one of the most virulently anti-woman books of the New Testament.”

That statement then leads to a virulently anti-woman attack on Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin – because nothing says “Merry Christmas” to liberals like bashing the Baby Jesus and Sarah Palin.

Get a load of this subheadline: “Sarah Palin is sinning right now.”

…The news magazines do this all the time – attacking Christians during the Christmas and Easter seasons. It’s a free country. We have a free press. They can write whatever they choose.But the national news magazines never seem to target Islam. When was the last time Newsweek or Time published an attack piece on Muhammad during Ramadan?

I wonder if Newsweek would have the courage to publish “The Koran: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin”?

I wonder if Newsweek would allow a feminist to weigh in on what the Islamic holy book says about women? Perhaps Newsweek could illustrate their story with cartoons of Muhammad – or maybe photographs of jihadists beading Christians in the name of Allah?

But we all know that won’t happen, right Newsweek?

The day after this Newsweek article came out, gallup.com published the following illuminating information…

About three in four Americans interviewed in 2014 name a Christian faith when asked for their religious preference, including 50% who are Protestants or another non-Catholic Christian religion, 24% who are Catholic and 2% who are Mormon.

These data are based on 173,490 interviews conducted from Jan. 2 through Dec. 21 as part of Gallup Daily tracking.

The proportion of Americans identifying as Protestant dropped by one percentage point from 2013 to 2014, while the Catholic and Mormon percentages stayed essentially the same.

About 6% of Americans identify with a non-Christian religion, including 2% who are Jewish, less than 1% who are Muslim and 3% who identify with other non-Christian religions. This leaves 16% who say they don’t have a religious preference, along with another 3% who don’t answer the question. This combined 19% without a formal religious identity is up one point from 2013.

The slight erosion of Americans’ identification as Protestant and concomitantly slight increase in the percentage with no religious preference exemplifies general trends in religious identity over the past decades. In the 1950s, Gallup surveys showed that up to 71% of Americans identified as Protestant, and small percentages had no religious identity. Then, as now, however, well more than 90% of Americans who express a religious preference identify themselves as Christians.

…More than half (53%) of Americans in 2014 report attending religious services at least monthly, including 41% who attend weekly or almost every week. Only one in five say they never attend religious services. These numbers reflect a slight shift to less frequent attendance compared with 2013.

Religious service attendance varies widely across segments of the U.S. population, including significant differences among specific religious groups. Mormons report the highest attendance of any of the major religious groups, with 75% attending weekly or almost every week. Protestants are next on the attendance list, followed by Muslims and Catholics. Attendance among Jews and those who identify with other non-Christian religions is significantly lower than that for Christians and Muslims. As would be expected, few of those who have no religious preference report attending services frequently.

After over 4 and 1/2 years of writing this daily blog, it still continues to amaze me how Liberals, now controlled by the ideology of the Far Left, desperately want to convince America that a) They are America’s largest Political Ideology and b) American Christianity is fading away into the sunset.

Praise God, they continue to be wrong on both counts.

America is still a nation comprised of a Conservative Majority, who go about their daily lives, trying to provide for their families and worshiping the God of their Fathers, in Spirit and in Truth.

Why does the Far Left, including President Barack Hussein Obama, continue to minimize and lie about this resolute fact?

To be blunt, Darkness fears the Light. Tyranny and oppression cannot thrive where there is Freedom of Religion. Our Founders knew that all too well.

For America to prosper and to remain free, we must, once again, anchor ourselves on the same Solid Rock as our Forefathers did.

We must stand for what is right, and speak out in righteous indignation against that which is wrong.

For, by doing that, we will preserve this Shining City Upon a Hill for our children and grandchildren.

something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time.

I suppose that’s me.

I started this Blog as a way to vent my frustrations with the ever-evolving “societal norms” and political mayhem around me. A lot of things just grated on my nerves. They still do.

I was “reared” (as we say in Dixie) by a Mother and Daddy (Southern colloquialism for a Male Parental Unit) who were members of the Greatest Generation. In fact, I was born 3 days before my mother’s 40th brithday. To this day, I believe that they were going to name me “Oops”.

My view of the world around me was shaped and nurtured by my Daddy, a Christian American, and the finest man I’ve ever known, who served with an Army Engineering Unit, as a Master Sergeant, in World War II, and who jumped off of a perfectly good boat into a hail of gunfire to join his American Brothers in the tide-turning American Victory known as “D-Day”.

Between him and my Mother, they taught me what it was to be a hard-working, Middle Class Christian American Conservative….and, to be proud of it.

But now, at 55 years old, trying to survive the presidency of an anti-American, Muslim-sympathizing, political-pandering, class warfare-preaching, card-carrying Communist, who went golfing yesterday, while sending more than 3,000 of our Brightest and Best, to Africa to be exposed to a disease which has now landed on our very shores, threatening our citizenry, I wonder if at times, if my self-assigned duty of writing this blog everyday, is actually worth the effort. I’m beginning to feel like I’m beating my dadgum head against the wall until it’s bloody, and for no cotton-pickin’ reason at all.

Why am I feelng that way?

Well, there are several reasons.

1. This country re-elected an idiot. Now, I realize that’s been done before. But, they all paled in comparison to this guy. I believe that “Scooter”, my pet name for Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmm), burnt up the vast majority of his gray matter during his “Choom Gang” days in Hawaii, and now, as an old friend, a former Meth-head, who, sadly, later committed suicide this time of year, used to tell me, he has “2 brain cells left and they’re fighting to the death”. I pray we survive the next 4 years.

2. Evidently, Americans, at least the majority of the ones that actually got up off the couch (Pookie, included) to vote on November 6th, want the Federal Government to take care of them, cradle to grave. Rush Limbaugh labelled this symptom, “The Baracky Claus Effect”. I pray, that, just as the Proletariat eventually figured out in the old Soviet Union, Americans are going to wake up one day, to find that mega-dependence on The State to run your life, leads to the loss of personal freedom. And those, who believe that they are “the most enlightened people in the room”, will be the first ones hollering, when they discover that their freedom has been taken away.

3. America seems to be devolving into a collection of Libertines. Notice, I did not say “Libertarians”, although, both descriptive words come from the same root word. A Libertine is, per Merriam-Webster.com,

a person who is unrestrained by convention or morality: one leading a dissolute (lacking moral restraint) life

Being a Libertarian used to mean you wanted less Government in your life and less restrictions on your personal happiness. Notice I said used to mean. Now, Libertine and Libertarian both seem to mean the same thing to the majority of posters self-identifying as members of the latter group on Internet chat boards.

Caligula’s Horse approves.

I suppose I could pontificate on the fallen nature of Man at this point, but, that’s fairly self-evident…and, as the late Freddie Prinze used to say, “Ees not my yob, man.”

4. Finally, I was told the other day, during the before-mentioned “discussion” on that Facebook Page, that my blog was considered a “joke”. I allowed this to hurt me very deeply. You see, since April of 2010, I have devoted a lot of time and effort to putting my ideas, however old-fashioned and cornball they are, down on paper. I truly enjoy doing it. I must. I haven’t made a dadgum dime off of it.

A while back, I was asked to define what it means to be a Christian American Conservative. After all, that’s how I identify myself and that is what it says on the top of this blog, since I began this exercise in ranting and raving in April of 2010.

Let’s perform a dissection, shall we?

First word: Christian – A follower of Jesus Christ.

I was raised as a Christian by my parents and accepted Christ as my personal Savior many years ago.

Here are some interesting things about Christianity to consider, written by Dr. Ray Pritchard and posted on christianity.com:

1) The name “Christian” was not invented by early Christians. It was a name given to them by others. 2) Christians called themselves by different names—disciples, believers, brethren, saints, the elect, etc. 3) The term apparently had a negative meaning in the beginning: “those belonging to the Christ party.” 4) It was a term of contempt or derision. 5) We can get a flavor for it if we take the word “Christ” and keep that pronunciation. You “Christ-ians.” 6) It literally means “Christ-followers.” 7) Over time a derogatory term became a positive designation. 8) Occasionally you will hear someone spit the term out in the same way it was used in the beginning. “You Christians think you’re the only ones going to heaven.” 9) There was a sense of suffering and reproach attached to the word in the New Testament.

In working my way toward an answer to “What is a Christian?” I decided to check out the dictionary. I found these two definitions:

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.”

That’s actually quite helpful because it gives some content to the word. To be a Christian means that you . . .

Believe Something Follow Something Live Something A Fully Devoted Follower To borrow a contemporary phrase, we could simply say that a Christian is a “fully devoted follower of Jesus.” As I think about that, two insights come to mind.

1) It doesn’t happen by accident. You are not “born” a Christian nor are you a Christian because of your family heritage. Being a Christian is not like being Irish. You aren’t a Christian simply because you were born into a Christian family. 2) It requires conversion of the heart. By using the term “conversion,” I simply mean what Jesus meant when he said that to be his disciple meant to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow him (Luke 9:23). The heart itself must be changed so that you become a follower of the Lord.

So what, then, does it mean to be an American? I suspect that most of us believe, like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing pornography, that we “know it when we see it.” For example, John Wayne, Amelia Earhart, and Bill Cosby definitely are Americans. The day laborers standing on the street corner probably are not. But how do we put this inner understanding into words? It’s not easy. Unlike most other nations on Earth, the American nation is not strictly defined in terms of race or ethnicity or ancestry or religion. George Washington may be the Father of Our Country (in my opinion, the greatest American who ever lived), but there have been in the past, and are today, many millions of patriotic, hardworking, upstanding Americans who are not Caucasian, or Christian, or of Western European ancestry. Yet they are undeniably as American as you or I (by the way, I am Jewish of predominantly Eastern European ancestry). Any definition of “American” that excludes such folks — let alone one that excludes me! — cannot be right.

Consequently, it is just not good enough to say, as some immigration restrictionists do, that this is a “white-majority, Western country.” Yes, it is. But so are, for example, Ireland and Sweden and Portugal. Clearly, this level of abstraction does not take us very far towards understanding what it means to be “an American.” Nor is it all that helpful to say that this is an English-speaking, predominately Christian country. While I think these features get us closer to the answer, there are millions of English-speaking (and non-English-speaking) Christians in the world who are not Americans, and millions of non-Christians who are. Certainly, these fundamental historical characteristics are important elements in determining who we are as a nation. Like other restrictionists, I am opposed to public policies that seek, by design or by default, to significantly alter the nation’s “demographic profile.” Still, it must be recognized that demography alone does not, and cannot, explain what it means to be an American.

So where does that leave us? I think the answer to our question, ultimately, must be found in the realms of ideology and culture. What distinguishes the United States from other nations, and what unites the disparate peoples who make up our country, are our unique political, economic, and social values, beliefs, and institutions. Not race, or religion, or ancestry.

Third word: Conservative -A person who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by a strong defense, strong free-market economic policies and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a Reagan conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issues – such as abortion, so-called gay rights or the Second Amendment – is not a Reagan conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Put another way: A Republican who is one part William F. Buckley Jr., one part Oliver North and one part Rachel Maddow is no true conservative. He is – well, I’m not exactly sure what he is, but it ain’t pretty.

Conservatism is thriving in America today because liberty, freedom and individual responsibility are at the heart of its ideology, one that rejects the foolish notion that government knows best. And its strength owes a great debt to the conviction and ideals of Ronald Reagan, who always believed that America’s best days are ahead of her, and for whom the notion of decline was unacceptable. As the Gipper famously put it, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in 1988:

Those who underestimate the conservative movement are the same people who always underestimate the American people.

In conclusion, I, a Christian American Conservative, am a follower of Jesus Christ and a citizen of the United States of America (by the Grace of God), who holds to traditional values and attitudes.

So, where do I go from here? Do I run away, with my tail between my legs, and live out the rest of my days in quiet desperation?

To any of you who repled, “yes”…you don’t know me very well.

Greater is He who is in me, than he who is in the world.

My Creator, while endowing me with certain inalienable rights, also endowed me with an indomitable will. Then, somewhere along my journey, He gave me the gift of being able to express my thoughts and feelings on this computer keyboard.

I will not give up. I will not surrender my Christianity, my love of the greatest nation on God’s green Earth, or my Conservatism, to appease those who wish everybody would just get in line and acquiesce to the prevailing “societal norms”. I follow another set of guidelines, written a long time ago, but which remain as relevant as the moment in which the Hand of God guided those who wrote them down.